U.S. Department Administrator 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

of Transportation Washington. DC 20590 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd 

Chainnan 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Mr. Chainnan: 

The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 2008 (Division K of Pub. L. 110-161) requires the Federal Railroad 

Administrator to "submit a report, and quarterly reports thereafter, to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations detailing the Administrator's efforts at improving 

the on-time perfonnance of Amtrak intercity rail service operating on non-Amtrak owned 

property. Such reports shall compare the most recent actual on-time perfonnance data to 

pre-established on-time perfonnance goals that the Administrator shall set for each rail 

service, identified by route. Such reports shall also include whatever other infonnation 

and data regarding the on-time perfonnance of Amtrak trains the Administrator deems to 

be appropriate." 

This letter constitutes the first report in response to this requirement. It includes three 

sections: (1) a review of the tools and authority FRA has available to influence Amtrak 

on-time perfonnance (OTP) on host freight railroads; (2) a summary of recent Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) efforts to improve Amtrak's on-time perfonnance (OTP); 

and (3) a summary of our approach to perfonnance measures. 

FRA's Authority 

While FRA does not have direct authority or enforcement mechanisms available to 

ensure reliable Amtrak operations over host freight railroads, we do have several tools 

available to influence and monitor progress, including: 

•	 Serving as the Secretary of Transportation's representative on the Amtrak Board 

of Directors, which provides an opportunity to review proposed Amtrak actions 

and advocate for improvements; 

•	 Overseeing Amtrak's capital and operating grants, including requiring Amtrak to 

establish plans and report on progress; 

•	 Promoting railroad safety, which provides an opportunity to work with key 

railroad officials and review actions or barriers to improving on-time perfonnance 

of Amtrak trains; 
2 

• Administering several other grant programs, including the new Capital Assistance 

to States – Intercity Passenger Rail Service Program, which includes criteria 

encouraging investment in railroad OTP improvements; and 

• Responding to formal petitions filed with the Secretary by Amtrak to increase the 

speed of trains when Amtrak is unable to secure voluntary agreement from the 

host railroad (49 U.S.C. §24308). 

Thus, even without regulatory authority over OTP, the FRA can leverage its Federal 

leadership role and its grant-making capabilities to support improved reliability of 

intercity passenger trains over host freight railroads. 

Recent Actions 

In our continuing efforts to assist Amtrak in improving its OTP over host freight 

railroads, the FRA has pursued two approaches: advocacy among the key stakeholders, 

and action plans for specific routes. 

Advocacy. As I assured the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee at the April 3, 2008 

hearing, improving OTP outside the Northeast Corridor continues to be a priority for 

FRA. As the Secretary of Transportation’s representative on the Amtrak Board, I have 

repeatedly emphasized to the Board and Amtrak management the criticality of OTP to the 

Corporation’s service quality, public image, traffic and revenue levels, operating 

economy, and financial performance. 

In addition, FRA has sought to bring the parties together to advance the goal of improved 

OTP. For example, in my annual safety meetings with senior executives from each of the 

Class I Railroads, I have added Amtrak OTP to the regular agenda. I have emphasized 

the critical nature of this issue, and indicated that FRA will be taking a more active role 

in monitoring progress. 

On April 16, 2008, Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters and I organized 

and led a meeting among the Class I railroads’ top executives, the Amtrak CEO 

and Board of Directors in Pueblo, Colorado. This was the first such executive 

level meeting among these parties, and it yielded an open, frank, productive 

discussion of key issues including OTP. Secretary Peters took an active role in 

the discussion, and specifically requested that Amtrak, the Class I’s, and FRA 

identify one Amtrak route on each major host railroad to develop an action plan 

for removing delays and improving OTP. We are now in the process of working 

with Amtrak and the Class I railroads to deliver on this directive. 

Route Action Plans. As a precursor to the route-specific improvement plans now under 

development, FRA initiated a pilot for the Southeast (I-95) Corridor. The U.S. 

Department of Transportation has designated the Southeast Corridor region as a 

“Corridor of the Future.” 
3 

As a part of our Fiscal Year 2007 Grant Agreement with Amtrak, FRA required Amtrak 

to submit a Southeast Corridor Performance Improvement Plan that would identify 

strategies to reach an OTP target of over 75% for the Auto Train, Silver Service, 

Palmetto, Carolinian, and Piedmont. 

To track progress on the Southeast Corridor, Amtrak and CSX developed a 

“Scorecard” methodology that addresses the train-minutes of delay and delay 

causes by CSX division. While this method is currently being used only for the 

Southeast Corridor, it is a model that can be applied to any Amtrak route. Amtrak 

presented the initial Southeast Corridor Performance Improvement Plan on June 

29, 2007, and followed that up with a revised Plan in conjunction with CSX on 

November 8, 2007. With host railroad participation, Amtrak is also required to 

provide to the FRA monthly status reports on strategy implementation and 

progress. 

Although correction of OTP deficiencies must be a long-term, proactive process, 

results thus far offer some encouragement. Prior to implementation of the 

Southeast Corridor Performance Improvement Plan, OTP on the Auto Train route 

was 15%. To assist in achieving an agreed target OTP of 80%, Amtrak and CSX 

added one hour to the Auto Train schedule effective April 2007. Following that 

schedule change, reductions in train interference delays enabled OTP to reach 

77%, and even to attain 100% for five weeks in 2007. The true test of this plan, 

however, will come when⎯under the terms of the Amtrak/CSX understanding, 

and after the implementation of enabling betterments, removals of slow orders, 

and associated adjustments in dispatching⎯the added hour is removed from the 

timetable. We at FRA will be following these Auto Train developments closely 

as a test case. 

By extension of the principles recently applied to the Southeast Corridor, Amtrak 

is seeking to upgrade OTP on a route-by-route basis elsewhere in the country. 

For example, after Amtrak met with Norfolk Southern (NS) in May 2007, the 

Capitol Limited, Lake Shore Limited, and Crescent routes experienced improved 

OTP; this improvement reflects an increased focus on passenger train reliability 

and a reduction in freight train interference on the part of NS, which is a 

significant host carrier on all three routes. 

Performance Measures 

In requiring this report, Congress sought not just improved transparency in the tracking of 

Amtrak’s OTP, but also better techniques for judging the quality of intercity passenger 

train performance. In response, we have assessed the strengths and limitations of 

alternative measures of performance. Attachment A provides a review of alternative 

performance measures for reliability. 
4 

While there is no single perfect measure ofreliability, we will seek to refine and improve 

the method ofreporting as we work with the stakeholders to establish specific targets fo~

each route. In the meantime, we are providing a selection ofpertinent OTP data for the 

various Amtrak routes in Attachment B. We also include a long-term OTP trend chart for 

each major Class I railroad in Attachment C. 

I hope that the information contained in this report will assist the Committee in its work, 

and look forward to providing follow-on reports on OTP as specified in the 2008 

Appropriations Act. 

Identical letters have been sent to the Ranking Member ofthe Senate Committee on 

Appropriations, and to the Chairman and Ranking Member ofthe House Committee on 

Appropriations. 

Attachments 
Attachment A: 

Overview of On-Time Performance Indicators 

for Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

Amtrak’s ability to operate passenger trains on time has been a long-standing 

weakness of the railroad. Amtrak’s continued struggle with on-time performance, 

coupled with its impact on ridership, has heightened scrutiny of the matter. Several 

statistical indicators exist for the various aspects of on-time performance. An apt 

combination of on-time indicators, which are explained in the subsequent text, can result 

in a more complete understanding of Amtrak’s on-time performance. 

Table 1 (on the following page) summarizes the pros and cons of each measure. 

Appendix A provides a glossary of terms. 

I. Terminal Performance Indicators 

Percent On Time. A basic indicator of on-time performance, “percent on time” 

is calculated by dividing the number of trains that arrive at their endpoint on time by the 

total number of trains operated during a specified period. 

While this statistic readily indicates how often trains arrive on time, it provides a 

deficient snapshot of service reliability. For instance, the definition of “on time” can vary 

as the term does not always refer to the scheduled arrival time. Amtrak’s monthly 

“percent on time” reports incorporate the former Interstate Commerce Commission’s 

(ICC’s) tolerance for lateness in the calculations. These ICC allowances consider trains 

10 to 30 minutes late as on time, depending on the route length (see Appendix B for the 

precise thresholds). Although many Amtrak trains are hours late rather than minutes late 

(and thereby considered late even with the allowance), use of the ICC tolerance does 

inflate the “percent on time.” However, including a tolerance in Amtrak’s on-time 

performance parallels passenger expectations for late train arrivals and is an adjustment 

utilized in other modes of travel (e.g. the airlines). 

Another issue with “percent on time” is that the statistic can be easily influenced, 

and the validity of long term trends can be weakened, by means of schedule changes. To 

account for some delays, Amtrak adds additional time to the run-time of routes, known as 

“pad” or “recovery time,” when developing its schedules. By adding recovery time, 

“percent on time” is improved, at least initially, as lengthened schedules reduce the 

number of late trains. As a result, this statistic can show an increase in on-time 

performance without improvements to train delays and trip times. Thus, “percent on 

time” can improve while service to the public deteriorates if schedules are inordinately 

lengthened to achieve the improvement. 

Additional limitations affect the usefulness of “percent on time.” First, it does not 

reveal the severity of lateness: the statistic provides no indication as to whether late trains 
2

are regularly minutes late or hours late. Second, the “percent on time” statistic does not 

incorporate the performance of a train between route endpoints. A train may be an hour 

Table 1: 

Some Advantages and Limitations 

of On-Time Performance Indicators 

Advantages 

Percent

OnTime 

Average 

Endpoint 

Minutes

Late for 

All Trains 

Average 

Endpoint 

Minutes

Late per 

100 TrainMiles 

Average 

Endpoint 

Minutes

Late for 

Late

Trains 

Delay 

Minutes

per 10,000

TrainMiles 

Scheduled 

Train

Speed 

Effective

Train

Speed 

Indicates a train’s ability to 

regularly operate on-time X X 

(when compared)

Indicates severity of lateness X X X X 

(when compared)

Indicates severity of lateness

normalized for distance X X 

(when compared)

Calculates all train delays

encountered over a normalized 

distance 

 X 

Can help identify causes of delays X 

Illuminates long-term trends in 

service quality as actually

delivered to and perceived by the 

public 

 X 

(when considered 

together)

Limitations 

There are multiple definitions of 

“on-time” which can make it 

unclear which definition is in 

effect

X X X X 

Does not reveal the severity of the 

lateness X 

Does not reveal the frequency of 

the lateness 

X X X X X X

Trends can be invalidated by

changes in schedules over time 

X X X X X 

Performance in intermediate 

markets not taken into 

consideration 

X X X X 

Provides no insight into causes of 

OTP problems

X X X X X X

Double-counts the effect recovery

time has on normalizing on-time 

performance 

 X 

Does not reveal the severity of the 

lateness in relation to schedule X 
3

late to a mid-point stop, but may make up that time throughout the duration of the route 

due to the recovery time in the schedule. Although the endpoints on some routes are the 

city-pairing that is most traveled, the passengers traveling from endpoint to endpoint 

rarely make-up a majority of the ridership. As a result, “percent on time” does not 

necessarily reflect what a majority of passengers experience. Third, “percent on time” 

does not indicate why a train’s reliability is so poor; a route’s low percentage indicates 

problems, but provides no information on their causes. 

Finally, by treating all train arrivals equally ⎯ regardless of run length, 

passenger-mileage, or revenues ⎯ the “percent on time” statistic makes no allowances or 

adjustments to reflect the relative importance of the various services that Amtrak 

operates. In Amtrak’s nationwide “percent on time” totals, each arrival of the ChicagoMilwaukee (86-mile) Hiawatha service counts equally with each arrival of the Sunset 

Limited (1,995 miles), despite significant differences in lateness, number of riders 

affected by lateness, and ridership expectations. While other on-time performance 

statistics report the lateness of trains, none of the commonly used statistics weight the 

importance of routes by any measure. As a result, none of the frequently-used indicators 

truly illustrate the Nation’s overall on-time experience with Amtrak. 

Average Endpoint Lateness (in Minutes) for All Trains. This statistic is based 

on endpoint terminal delay, which is the lateness of a train at its final destination. For a 

given period on a given route, the total endpoint terminal delays of all trains are added up 

and divided by the number of trains, thus yielding an average delay per train arrival. This 

particular calculation utilizes a zero tolerance for lateness since the typical passenger will 

perceive his or her train’s lateness based on the printed timetable. Thus “average 

endpoint lateness for all trains” will represent the best point estimate of what the 

passenger on a given route can expect in detraining at the ultimate terminal. 

Many of the limitations with the “percent on time” statistic also apply to “average 

endpoint lateness for all trains.” The average endpoint lateness can be influenced simply 

through a lengthening of schedule times. Furthermore, this simple average does not 

measure volatility in the performance of individual trains; for that, more complex 

statistical measurements would be needed. Also, since this statistic only calculates 

endpoint lateness, it does not incorporate the on-time performance between route 

endpoints. Additionally, “average endpoint lateness for all trains” provides no 

information on what is affecting on-time performance. However, it does provide an 

index of the severity (as opposed to the incidence) of reliability problems on individual 

routes. 

Average Endpoint Lateness (in Minutes) per 100 Train-Miles. This statistic 

provides the average lateness trains experience over 100 miles of operation. Routes with 

the same average endpoint lateness do not necessarily experience the same severity of 

lateness, which this statistic illustrates. A route 200 miles in length with an average 

endpoint lateness of 30 minutes (i.e. 15 minutes late per 100 train-miles) experiences a 
4

greater degree of lateness than a 600 mile route with same average endpoint lateness (i.e. 

only 5 minutes late per 100 train-miles) since it generates 30 minutes of average endpoint 

lateness while only traveling one-third the distance. Similarly, end-to-end passengers on 

the shorter route are much less likely to tolerate 30 minutes of lateness (and are much 

more likely to forsake passenger rail travel in future) than are passengers on the longer 

route with the same average lateness. Thus, the “average endpoint lateness per 100 trainmiles” illustrates the average lateness of trains over a uniform distance, and attempts to 

gauge the perceived severity of the route’s unreliability. 

Of course, the “average endpoint lateness per 100 train-miles” also has many of 

the same drawbacks mentioned in the previous statistics. It can be influenced by 

lengthening schedules, it does not incorporate on-time performance between endpoints, 

and it does not reveal factors affecting a train’s on-time performance. 

 “Average endpoint lateness per 100 train-miles” is useful for comparing a route’s 

performance with itself over time, and with other analogous routes. However, it is not a 

reliable indicator in a comparison of short- with long-distance routes, as it exaggerates 

the true performance of the latter. Here is why: The root of this statistic, “average 

endpoint lateness for all trains,” is already normalized for distance since the recovery 

time (“pad”) incorporated in the schedules is typically higher, on a per-mile basis, for 

longer than for shorter routes, according to preliminary FRA staff research (see Appendix 

C). Converting the “average endpoint lateness for all trains” to a uniform distance 

normalizes the data for distance a second time, which double-counts the effect recovery 

time has on improving on-time performance. A long-distance train with the same 

“average endpoint lateness per 100 train-miles” as a short-distance train, in reality 

encounters more delays, which is concealed by the additional recovery time embedded in 

its schedule. As a result, comparisons of “average lateness per 100 train-miles” between 

routes should be used carefully, especially between short-distance and long-distance 

trains. 

Average Endpoint Lateness (in Minutes) for Late Trains. This statistic 

illustrates the average lateness of only those trains that are considered “late” to their 

endpoint and is another indicator reflecting the severity of lateness. Since the statistic 

only includes late trains, it better depicts the severity of late trains. The “average 

endpoint lateness for late trains” may incorporate the ICC tolerance; however, calculating 

the statistic without the tolerance provides a more accurate depiction of lateness. As a 

result, the FRA does not incorporate the ICC tolerance when utilizing “average endpoint 

lateness for late trains.” 

The drawbacks of this statistic are that of the “average endpoint lateness for all 

trains.” It does not reveal the frequency of lateness, it can be influenced by lengthening 

schedules, it provides no information on intermediate stop performance, and offers no 

indication of the cause of delays. To be fully appreciated, this statistic should be read in 

conjunction with “percent on time.” 
5

Initial Terminal Delay. “Initial terminal delay” illustrates the lateness of train 

departures at the origin of a route. While this measure is not a direct gauge of on-time 

performance, it is indicative of on-time operating abilities. Trains that regularly 

experience “initial terminal delays” are hindered in their ability to operate on-time from 

the very start of the route, often missing their “slots” and thus slipping later as they 

proceed down the line.

II. En-Route Delay Indicator 

Delay Minutes per 10,000 Train-Miles. This statistic is a record of all train 

delays (i.e. unscheduled stops between stations, elongated dwell times at stations, and 

trains running below scheduled speeds) incurred over each 10,000 train-miles of 

operation over a route. This statistic is calculated on the basis of conductors’ reports of 

all deviations from the “pure run-time” over each route segment. The “pure run-time” is 

the best-case scenario trip time for an Amtrak train over a route, with no interference or 

delays. It is developed after multiple test runs on a route by agreement between Amtrak 

and the host railroad. The established “pure run-time” plus “recovery time” yields the 

published timings for a route. 

One advantage of using “pure run-time,” and reported deviations from it, is that 

changes are made to “pure run times” relatively infrequently⎯for instance, when Amtrak 

develops a new multi-year contract with a host railroad. By contrast, published route 

timings, which form the basis for most of the other OTP measures, are more readily 

susceptible to change as they are often updated twice a year. In addition to being less 

frequent, changes in “pure run time” also tend to be more microscopic⎯in minutes 

instead of hours⎯as they normally impact short route segments rather than an entire 

route of hundreds of miles. Finally, because conductors report on the cause of each 

delay, the “delay minutes per 10,000 train-miles” can pinpoint the reasons and parties 

responsible for declining OTP (e.g., slow orders, freight congestion, and mechanical 

problems), thereby offering a path toward remedial measures. 

Aside from normal station dwell times, delays of any kind undermine passenger 

morale and detract from the perceived competence of the carrier. Thus, the fewer the 

delays, the fewer the frustrations felt by passengers and the more likely they will become 

repeat customers of intercity passenger rail. Still, while helping to identify routes with 

on-time performance issues (since trains with frequent and sizable delays are prone to 

late arrivals), the “delay minutes per 10,000 train-miles” measure does not directly 

indicate the on-time performance of a route. As a result, it is beneficial to use this figure 

in conjunction with other measures, to help illustrate why trains are arriving late. 

Despite the undoubted utility and advantages of “delay minutes per 10,000 train 

miles,” it is not a perfect measure of OTP. Over time, and as a result of extended 

negotiations among Amtrak and the freight railroads, the “pure run time” of a route and 

of its segments is susceptible to adjustment. Especially over a five- or ten-year period, 

and possibly in even less time, an improvement in “delay-minutes per 10,000 train-miles” 
6

for a given route may represent a kind of “grade creep” if “pure run times” have 

lengthened by degrees. In that case, a decrease in “delay minutes per 10,000 train-miles” 

may actually mask an increase in scheduled or effective train speeds and a worsening in 

service to the public. This possibility further underlines the need for consideration of 

multiple OTP measures, and for the development of criteria that may protect against 

“grade creep” in reports on intercity passenger rail service quality. 

III. Average Speed Indicators 

Although not constituting “on-time performance” indicators per se, the average 

speeds at which trains operate provide important measures of route performance when 

examined in conjunction with the “endpoint” and “delay” indicators. Indeed, the two 

average speed indicators ⎯ when used together and compared over time ⎯ arguably 

provide the most comprehensive available overview of route performance. 

 Scheduled Speed. “Scheduled speed” is the average miles per hour a train is 

scheduled to travel over a route (mileage divided by the scheduled run-time between 

endpoints). Since the mileage and station stops along routes are relatively constant, 

changes in average miles per hour typically result from changes in schedule length. 

Routes with poor on-time performance may have recovery time added to their schedule, 

causing an increase in schedule length and a decrease in the train’s average miles per 

hour (if in fact other route variables remain unchanged). 

Effective Speed. An additional statistic that assists in measuring on-time 

performance is the “effective speed” (i.e. effective miles per hour of a train). This 

statistic divides a route’s mileage by the scheduled run-time plus “average endpoint 

lateness for all trains.” For example, a 200-mile route scheduled to take 3 hours with an 

“average endpoint lateness for all trains” of 30 minutes, has a “scheduled speed” of 67 

mph (200 miles / 3 hour schedule) but an “effective speed” of 57 mph (200 miles / (3 

hour schedule + 30 minutes “average endpoint lateness for all trains”). Adding the 

“average endpoint lateness for all trains” to the scheduled run-time provides greater 

insight into the actual operating speed of trains. The “effective speed” of a train can be 

compared to the “scheduled speed” to illustrate the effect delays are having on publiclyperceived travel times. 

Increases in train delays lead to increases in “average endpoint lateness for all 

trains,” which, in turn, decrease the “effective speed” of a train. However, a decrease in 

“effective speed” without a corresponding decrease in OTP suggests that a train’s 

schedule has been lengthened. 

Because so many opportunities exist over time to gradually lengthen train 

schedules in response to on-time performance problems, time-series comparisons of 

average and effective speeds for a particular route often offer the most concise summary 

portrait of a route’s evolving performance. In particular, comparisons of average and 

effective speeds over time would be most useful in tracking the substantive 
7

accomplishments of OTP betterment programs such as those presently underway in the 

Southeast (I-95) Corridor. 

Conclusion 

The available statistics individually provide only partial pictures of Amtrak’s OTP 

and contain many nuances. A robust perspective of Amtrak’s on-time performance stems 

from analyzing multiple indicators while considering the thresholds used and the 

distinctions of each statistic. When complimentary indicators are concurrently evaluated, 

the various dimensions of on-time performance, including frequency, severity, and cause 

of late trains, can emerge and shed light on possible pathways to an improved, more 

marketable transportation product. 
Appendix A [to Attachment A]: Definitions

Average Endpoint Minutes Late – The number of minutes, on average, a train arrives late to its 

final stop over a period of time.

Effective Speed – The average speed a train travels after incorporating the average lateness 

encountered over a period of time. 

Endpoint – The final station stop on each end of a route. 

Endpoint Terminal Delay – The lateness of a train at a route’s final stop. 

Initial Terminal Delay - The lateness of a train in departing from its originating station.

Interstate Commerce Commission Tolerance – An allowance, established by the Interstate 

Commerce Commission, permitting intercity passenger trains 10 - 30 minutes late to 

be considered as on-time, depending on the route’s distance. 

Percent On-Time – The percentage of trains considered to be on-time upon arrival to their final 

stop over a period of time. 

Recovery Time – Time added to lengthen schedules to account for some delays expected along 

a route. 

Scheduled Speed – The average speed a train is to travel over a route, based on the train’s 

official schedule. 

Terminal Performance Indicators – On-time performance indicators based on train arrivals 

and departures at route endpoints. 

Train Delay – Consists of any unscheduled stops between stations, extended dwell 

time at stations, and having to run trains below scheduled speeds. 

Train-Mile – A mile traveled by a train along its route. 
Appendix B [to Attachment A]: ICC Issued On-Time Performance Tolerances 

ICC On-Time Performance 

Tolerances 

Trip Length

(Miles)

Tolerances

(Minutes)

0 - 250 10 

251 - 350 15 

351 - 450 20 

451 - 550 25 

551 or more

miles 30 

ICC Tolerance vs. Zero Tolerance 

February FY08 Year-to-Date Percent On-Time Data

Amtrak Train 

Tolerances

(Minutes)

% On-Time 

(ICC Tolerance)

% On-Time 

(Zero Tolerance)

Hiawatha 10 84% 44%

Lincoln Service 15 57% 30%

Adirondack 20 42% 15%

Empire Service 25 71% 38%

Capitol Limited 30 44% 19%
Appendix C [to Attachment A]: 

Recovery Time Estimates on Corridor vs. Long-Distance Routes 

Comparison of Amtrak Route Lengths 

and Estimated Route Recovery Time

Corridor Routes vs. Longer Distance Routes Utilizing Corridor Trackage

 

Route Recovery

Time

Route Type Route Name Mileage

Total 

Hours 

 Hours Per 

100 TrainMiles 

Corridor Route 

Regional (NYCD.C.) 256 0.33 0.15

Longer Route Over Corridor

Trackage Silver Star 1522 5.48 0.36 

 

Corridor Route Lincoln Service 284 1.32 0.46 

Longer Route Over Corridor

Trackage Texas Eagle 1305 8.98 0.69 

 

Corridor Route Illini 310 1.37 0.44

Longer Route Over Corridor

Trackage 

City of New 

Orleans 926 4.72 0.51

 

Corridor Route Cascades 310 1.37 0.44

Longer Route Over Corridor

Trackage Coast Starlight 1377 6.63 0.48 

The recovery times used in the above table were based on preliminary FRA staff research. The 

figures were attained by taking the sequential city pairings of a route and comparing their 

scheduled run-times in each direction. Differences in scheduled run-times, based on direction, 

were summed to produce the total route recovery time (in hours) and then converted to route 

recovery time per 100 train-miles (in hours). 

The recovery time per 100 train-miles normalizes for distance. As a result, a “corridor route” 

should have the same recovery time per 100 train-miles as the “longer route over corridor 

trackage.” However, the table shows that a “corridor route” has less recovery time per 100 trainmiles than the “longer route over corridor trackage,” thus illustrating that longer-distance routes 

tend to have proportionately more recovery time added to their schedules than shorter distance 

routes. 
Attachment B: Amtrak On-Time Performance: Fiscal Year 2008 

Year to Date Totals through February 2008 

Amtrak Routes 

Endpoint Lateness 

Indicators Average Speed Indicators 

Northeast Corridor Service 

% 

OnTime

Avg.

Minutes 

Late* 

(All Trains)

Avg.

Minutes 

Late* 

(Late Trains)

Scheduled

Speed 

(MPH)

Effective 

Speed 

(MPH)

% Difference - 

Effective from

Scheduled 

Speed 

Acela 84% 9 16 70 68 -2% 

Regional Service 78% 9 16 59 58 -2% 

Short Distance/Corridor Trains 

Adirondack 42% 48 56 35 33 -6% 

Blue Water 27% 54 63 45 40 -11% 

Capitols 86% 6 16 43 42 -3% 

Carolinian 48% 38 46 53 51 -4% 

Cascades 62% 17 28 49 47 -5% 

Downeaster 68% 12 16 48 44 -8% 

Empire Service 71% 15 25 53 52 -2% 

Ethan Allen Express 27% 36 40 44 40 -9% 

Heartland Flyer 63% 16 30 49 46 -7% 

Hiawatha 84% 6 12 58 54 -7% 

Hoosier State 37% 42 63 39 34 -13% 

Illini 54% 26 40 56 52 -7% 

Illinois Zephyr 76% 16 30 59 56 -6% 

Keystone 86% 6 11 59 56 -5% 

Lincoln Service 57% 24 35 52 48 -7% 

Maple Leaf 43% 39 49 42 40 -4% 

Missouri Services 14% 72 75 50 41 -18% 

Pacific Surfliner 79% 9 17 41 41 -1% 

Pennsylvanian 89% 9 20 47 46 -1% 

Pere Marquette 28% 35 38 44 39 -12% 

Piedmont 78% 8 15 55 53 -4% 

San Joaquins 86% 9 20 52 51 -3% 

Vermonter 41% 47 53 46 43 -6% 

Wolverines 30% 46 53 46 42 -9% 

Long Distance Trains 

Auto Train 87% 13 57 49 48 -1% 

California Zephyr 41% 128 177 45 43 -5% 

Capitol Limited 44% 56 70 44 41 -6% 

Cardinal 37% 90 109 41 39 -4% 

City of New Orleans 83% 21 53 48 47 -2% 

Coast Starlight 50% 65 106 39 38 -2% 

Crescent 72% 26 56 46 45 -2% 

Empire Builder 56% 69 117 48 47 -2% 

Lake Shore Limited 45% 61 81 49 46 -6% 

Palmetto 58% 34 54 55 53 -4% 

Silver Meteor 70% 34 76 51 50 -3% 

Silver Star 44% 59 74 49 48 -3% 

Southwest Chief 82% 25 69 53 52 -1% 

Sunset Limited 19% 135 152 42 40 -5% 

Texas Eagle 33% 82 99 41 39 -4% 

*Weighted average based on number of Acela and Regional operations along the NEC 

NOTE: "Scheduled speed" = elapsed time per published timetable divided into route-mileage. 

"Effective speed” = (elapsed time per published timetable plus average minutes late for all trains) divided into route-mileage.
 Attachment C 

Host Railroad Responsible Delay per 10

Train-Miles

-

400800

1,2001,6002,0002,4002,8003,200

02 Oct

02 Dec

03 Feb

03 Apr

03 Jun

03 Aug

03 Oct

03 Dec

04 Feb

04 Apr

04 Jun

04 Aug

04 Oct

04 Dec

05 Feb

05 Apr

05 Jun

05 Aug

05 Oct

05 Dec

06 Feb

06 Apr

06 Jun

06 Aug

06 Oct

06 Dec

07 Feb

07 Apr

Minutes of Delay per 10,000 Train-Miles

UP CSXT NS BNSF

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07